WI: All hail the King... John II of England!!! John of Gaunt as King of England

The POD is simple. At the time of death of the king Edward III of England. John of the Gaunt is his heir presumptive. That means that Richard of Bordeaux (OTL Richard II) dies before his grandfather. (It's possible that we have to remove Philippa De Mortimore as well, but personaly I can't imagine her having a chance to claim the throne for herself with so many living sons of Edward III)

How effective John of Gaunt would have been as King of England? Judging from how he was the wealthiest man in England during reign of Richard II, I think that he was quite decent administrator, and skilled diplomat to boot. But on the other hand, judging from how he was accused for trying to claim the throne for himself during reign of his nephew, it's possible that he wasn't very popular. Either way, I quess that having Henry IV & V awith unquestionable rights to the throne alone should change quite a lot. Butwhat about Ireland, Scotland and France in this timeline?

 
Philippa has no chance. Langley, as the fourth son, would sooner take the crown than his niece, a woman.
Gaunt may in fact succeed with his Castilian invasion this time, having had designs on its crown as far back as ~6-5 years before this point of divergence, and now the undiminished support of his home. Though that raises the question, how would that be handled? Would he crown a hypothetical son he has with Constance king, or would he commandeer the kingdom's resources in the struggle against the perfidious Capet?
 
Gaunt may in fact succeed with his Castilian invasion this time, having had designs on its crown as far back as ~6-5 years before this point of divergence, and now the undiminished support of his home. Though that raises the question, how would that be handled?
I could totally see John II to seek some kind of deal with France to gain more financial support in his Castilian campaign. Outside of this, hard to tell.
Anglo-Castillan personal union couldn't last long from obvious reasons, But still, gaining another throne for Plantagenets should really help them in the long term.
 
The POD is simple. At the time of death of the king Edward III of England. John of the Gaunt is his heir presumptive. That means that Richard of Bordeaux (OTL Richard II) dies before his grandfather. (It's possible that we have to remove Philippa De Mortimore as well, but personaly I can't imagine her having a chance to claim the throne for herself with so many living sons of Edward III)

How effective John of Gaunt would have been as King of England? Judging from how he was the wealthiest man in England during reign of Richard II, I think that he was quite decent administrator, and skilled diplomat to boot. But on the other hand, judging from how he was accused for trying to claim the throne for himself during reign of his nephew, it's possible that he wasn't very popular. Either way, I quess that having Henry IV & V awith unquestionable rights to the throne alone should change quite a lot. Butwhat about Ireland, Scotland and France in this timeline?

John of gaunt was off the opinion that there should be peace with France because the crown was in deep debt's due to putting Pedro the cruel back in control castille. Pedro also could not afford the debts to the English crown so the money was never repaid.
 
Philippa has no chance. Langley, as the fourth son, would sooner take the crown than his niece, a woman.
Gaunt is the third son, and succeeds. Langley is right out.
Gaunt may in fact succeed with his Castilian invasion this time, having had designs on its crown as far back as ~6-5 years before this point of divergence, and now the undiminished support of his home.
If he's King of England, he's probably too busy to go haring off after a foreign crown. Except that of France, of course.
 
Nothing against John of Gaunt, but this is low-key an England screw.

Let's start with the war effort that John II would inherit, which can best be summed up by saying that Edward III chose the worst possible moment to die.

The most recent truce with France was set to expire in a matter of days after Edward III's death and England was on the precipice of launching a major campaign into France. The army had already been mustered and a large navy assembled to shuttle men across the Channel -- and then it had to be called off. Why? Because legally it no longer had any authority to exist. The army had been gathered in the name of Edward III and it had no right to go to war in the name of a dead man. Even if the new King John II wanted the campaign to go ahead as planned, the lords and knights who were to lead this expedition had to be on-hand to facilitate and witness the transition of power. But the men and ships had already been gathered -- and so they had to be paid. This made for an enormous waste of money at a time when the kingdom was already cash-strapped.

But the problems don't stop there. Just as the army's authority to wage war had lapsed, so too had the diplomatic authority of Edward III's ambassadors. So, with the truce set to expire and the campaign having to be called off, the English had no ability to negotiate an extension of the truce. This gave France an open shot at invasion of English continental territories.

This above is the situation that OTL Richard II inherited, and that John will inherit in ATL. But John has one big problem abroad that Richard did not: his claim to Castile. John II would be styling himself king of England and of France and of Castile and lord of Ireland. This union of the Plantagenet claims to France and Castile in one man very probably draws the Franco-Castilian alliance even closer together -- and makes the war even more daunting for the English.

Then, on top of this, John II has a number of domestic problems that Richard did not. Off the top of my head:
  1. John is a deeply unpopular figure at this point. Indeed, 1377 is probably the lowest point in John's career. He overreacted badly to the Good Parliament's reforms of royal administration, raising a small army to round up and toss a number of the reformers into jail. This was an extremely controversial move that tarred John with a wide swathe of the gentry who made up the commons -- i.e., the body that controls taxation and is now claiming new authority to oversee royal administration. This quite possibly sets up a showdown between the crown and parliament.

  2. The reformers of the Good Parliament came largely from the retinue of the earl of March. The counter-reformers of the Bad Parliament came largely from the retinue of Lancaster. These parliaments in 1376 and 1377 are arguably the prelude to the Wars of the Roses, as the OTL reform platform was effectively a proxy war over who was in the line of succession after Richard. (The reformers wanted to limit John's powers as Edward's de facto regent and install March in government.) This is a clear indication that March was willing to fight for his right to the crown jure uxoris, which sets him on a collision course with John in a world where Richard dies and John is recognized as heir to the throne.

  3. John's opposition to the Good Parliament and his actions in the Bad Parliament had made him a powerful enemy in the church, as William of Wykeham, bishop of Winchester (and therefore lord over the greatest ecclesiastical treasury in England), became caught up in the politics of these parliaments and ended up aligned against John. In OTL, Wykeham is pardoned early in Richard's reign, but who I am doubtful John would be so forgiving.

  4. John had made enemies in the church of England even before this feud with Wykeham, though. John's support for John Wycliffe in the 70s made him not quite a heretic, but you could say he was "heretic adjacent." One of the country's chief opponents to Lollardy was William Courtenay, bishop of London, who was a major political player both by virtue of the office he held and by his birth (his father was earl of Devon and his mother was daughter of the earl of Hereford, giving him relations throughout the peerage). Courtenay was fiercely devoted to protecting the church's interests and John's support of Wycliffe seems to have come from a belief that the church had acquired too much power in the secular world. OTL Courtenay was part of Richard's regency council and likely one of the figures instrumental in keeping John and Richard's other uncles out of power. His inability to sideline John in ATL would surely set the two up for conflict.

  5. Finally, John had gotten caught up in the messy politics of the London merchant scene, which -- in addition to his terrible relationship with the bishop of London -- had made him broadly unpopular with the local population. (I have to admit that I don't fully understand the messy and partisan nature of the various merchant guilds of 14th century London, but John's problems with the merchants stems from his securing a pardon for one of his tenants, John Pecche, who -- in addition to being one of John's feudal tenants -- was a corrupt fishmonger.) This is no small thing. London merchants had become powerful figures by this point in history and were an important source of crown revenue, as they routinely extended loans to Edward III to finance his campaigns. John II may not be able to tap these men for their money the way his father had or OTL Richard II's regency council did.
tl;dr: John of Gaunt has, by 1377, alienated much of the commons, has a major rival in the peerage (March), has two separate conflicts with major church leaders, and has run afoul of the wealthy merchant class in London.

On the plus side, John is the wealthiest man in the kingdom, he has an enormous retinue, his brother (Langley) is fiercely loyal to him, and one of his longtime supporters is the archbishop of Canterbury, so he is at least guaranteed a coronation. But I don't think this is enough, tbh. John II faces all the problems OTL Richard II faced while also having to fend off a possible rebellion from March, having to finance a war without the credit of London's merchants, and having poor relations with the church and commons. It is a nightmare scenario. He'd probably need to take several years just to secure his own position as king -- and by that time, France may well have thrown the English off the continent.


I quess that having Henry IV & V awith unquestionable rights to the throne alone should change quite a lot
There's not going to be a Henry V as we know him. Mary de Bohun is a poor choice of bride for Bolingbroke in a world where he is prince of Wales. In ATL, Mary may end up in a convent without John of Gaunt's intervention, which brings the entire Bohun estate to Thomas of Woodstock. (Or perhaps John II would intervene in ATL to arrange a marriage for Mary to Edward of Norwich? cc: @CaptainShadow)

I think there are two obvious places where John II would look to secure a bride for his son
  1. France: John inherits a mess of a war and has a number of enemies in his own kingdom -- he's not in a position to actually prosecute a war in 1377. I think it's most likely that he seeks a French bride to secure a truce, possibly even accepting a token dowry just to buy himself time to deal with his domestic crises. Charles V's daughters both die around his time, and so this will come to nothing if they suffer their same fates in ATL.

  2. Navarre: This is probably the best match for Bolingbroke. Charles the Bad still aspires to the French throne and has territorial ambitions in Castile, making him a possible ally who could also help shore up what remains of Gascony. The problem here is that John would need secure a truce with France without wedding off Bolingbroke and take the time the truce buys him to secure his throne. This could be possible because ...
John has three daughters, which gives a huge diplomatic advantage over OTL Richard II.
  • Philippa was betrothed to heir of Gaston III of Foix in the mid-70s, but the boy -- another Gaston -- ended up wedding Beatrix d'Armagnac to end the long-running war between Armagnac and Foix. (Young Gaston died in 1382, but I have no idea of what.) I have to wonder whether this match is more appealing to Gaston III in ATL because, if so, the butterflies from this marriage are possibly huge. An English alliance with Foix transforms the situation in Gascony.

  • Elizabeth is guaranteed a more illustrious match than she got in OTL, but I don't know where she'd go off hand. Perhaps she'd be kept strategically unmarried as to keep a possible marriage to Charles VI on the table for some future negotiation?

  • Catherine is the big one. She could be wed off to Enrique earlier in ATL, as to break the Franco-Castilian alliance and allow John to focus on the war with France. But there are some other, much crazier options for Catherine in ATL:
    • John could try to wed Catherine to John I of Aragon if Martha of Armagnac dies on schedule. This would bring a wealthy and powerful new ally into the war on the English side and create a Barcelona-led Spain, if Aragon can succeed against the Trastámaras in Castile.
    • John could also try to turn his enemies against one another if Catherine stays unmarried into the 80s, and Charles V dies on schedule in ATL. Charles VI was very close with his brother, Louis, and in OTL even tried to carve out an Adriatic kingdom for him. Would ATL Charles VI want a kingdom for his dear brother? And would he be willing to betray his Trastámaran allies, return Aquitaine to the English, and secure Louis a claim to Castile?
    • There is also John of Avis. Catherine could be used to secure Avis's claim to the Portuguese throne, depending on if the succession crisis in Portugal plays out as it did in ATL. After Beatriz of Portugal, the next people in line for the throne are Beatriz's uncles, John de Castro and Denis de Castro. But their legitimacy is murky and their claims aren't recognized by Beatriz's father. If you are to believe that the Castro brothers are illegitimate, then the next in line to the Portuguese throne after Beatriz is ... Catherine of Lancaster. (The rightful claim would go up to Alfonso IV's daughter, Maria, who was Pedro the Cruel's mother, and his claim descends to Catherine.) This creates the potential for a Portuguese-led Spain, if Portugal can succeed against the Trastámaras in Castile. (Though I doubt they can.)
If John II can secure a truce with France, then use the time that buys him to sort out his $#@! in England, and then re-enter the war in a stronger position ... it's an interesting place for England to be. But he's gonna have several long, hard years to get there and I think it's possible France just wins the war outright before he can.
 
Last edited:
I was saying that even were the third son to die, the ever-heavy cap would in no circumstance find its way onto a woman's scalp, regardless of her seniority by line.
I think it's clear that in this era it would be her husband who is governing her name.
 
That is true, but the initial post floated her as an obstacle, that being unrealistic, thus the rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
I was saying that even were the third son to die, the ever-heavy cap would in no circumstance find its way onto a woman's scalp, regardless of her seniority by line.
Not then. But less than a century later, inheritance through female lines was asserted by both sides in the Wars of the Roses, and soon after, several queens regnant appeared with little controversy over their gender: Isabella of Castile (opposed by la Beltraneja); Mary I Tudor (challenged by Jane Grey); Elizabeth I Tudor; Mary of Scotland.

One wonders what happened to change attitudes so dramatically.
 
(Young Gaston died in 1382, but I have no idea of what.)
the story, IIRC, was that Gaston was given poison for his dad by Carlos el Malo under the guise that it was a "love tonic" and would at least help Gaston's parents "reconcile" (their relationship, even by the standards of the day, was deemed atrocious, and Carlos was the only reason that Gaston's dad didn't do anything "extreme"). Gaston was caught by his father (trying to sneak the love potion into the wine). And when Gaston Jr realized he had been duped, he was so overcome with guilt that he refused to eat and essentially starved himself to death.
 
  • An English alliance with Foix transforms the situation in Gascony.

  • Elizabeth is guaranteed a more illustrious match than she got in OTL, but I don't know where she'd go off hand. Perhaps she'd be kept strategically unmarried as to keep a possible marriage to Charles VI on the table for some future negotiation?
Shortly after Philippa's failed betrothal to Foix, a match was considered with the count of Holland (Wilhelm of Bavaria-Straubing, father of the future duchess of Touraine, Brabant and Gloucester). There was also a Breton match considered after Joan Holland died. As for Elizabeth, there had been talk of a match with Charles le Fou, but I'm guessing Edward III's death or the expiry of the truce scuppered them.

Navarre: This is probably the best match for Bolingbroke. Charles the Bad still aspires to the French throne and has territorial ambitions in Castile, making him a possible ally who could also help shore up what remains of Gascony. The problem here is that John would need secure a truce with France without wedding off Bolingbroke and take the time the truce buys him to secure his throne. This could be possible because ...
ISTR that Carlos el Malo had the ambition of a double match. One daughter to be duchess of Brittany, one to be queen of England. He sent the ambassadors but they were...waylaid by Charles V.
 
How did the WotR change attitudes in Castile and Scotland?
Castile and Scotland were different coloured horses. Castile had had a reigning queen before (Urraca), and the "succession crisis" in Castile ran over "which queen" not the rules of golf (gentlemen only, ladies forbidden). Scotland, OTOH, it was a case of the succession had been limited to "male line" descendants of King Robert (ICR if it was 2 or 3). And only allowed female succession once those male-lines were exhausted. Mary, QoS was the last of the "legitimate male line" descendants. It was why there was such a scuffle about whether the Hamiltons were "legitimate" and "above" the Darnley-Stewarts or not.Had Albany had a son, said son would be the next king of Scots instead, no succession scuffle about the Hamiltons, the Darnleys would likely pale into obscurity (they certainly would not be marrying the king of England's niece)

@VVD0D95 @isabella can correct me, but that's my understanding of it
 
I think it's clear that in this era it would be her husband who is governing her name.
The only way I could see Philippa to have a chance to claim the throne in the first place, is to have some kind of a deal between their uncles. And all of Edward III's sons quite ambitious guys. She's not Empress Matilda for sure - and Matilda had to strike a deal with Stephen to make her son a king, and didn't have to worry about other male members of House of Normandy.

If he's King of England, he's probably too busy to go haring off after a foreign crown. Except that of France, of course.
England at the time was in no economic shape for another invasion on France. Richard II looked for compromise, and I see nor reason, why John II wouldn't do the same - after all, he supported and helped Richard during Truce of Leulinghem negotionations. But John should be more effective, since 1) he was more skilled diplomat and 2) Unlike his nephew, he wasn't francophile. Of course France could start it, but it's not like they were in such great shape either. So both sides are in need for timr to catch breath, and I think that more pragmatic John II would gladly trade his right to use "King of France" title and removal of fleurs-de-lis for some money.

On the plus side, John is the wealthiest man in the kingdom, he has an enormous retinue, his brother (Langley) is fiercely loyal to him, and one of his longtime supporters is the archbishop of Canterbury, so he is at least guaranteed a coronation. But I don't think this is enough, tbh. John II faces all the problems OTL Richard II faced while also having to fend off a possible rebellion from March, having to finance a war without the credit of London's merchants, and having poor relations with the church and commons. It is a nightmare scenario. He'd probably need to take several years just to secure his own position as king -- and by that time, France may well have thrown the English off the continent.
Like I said - France wasn't in such great shape either, Charles VI was a called mad for a reason, Kingdom was on the brink of civil war pretty much all the time, and France was trying luck in Italy during that time.
John II faces all the problems OTL Richard II faced while also having to fend off a possible rebellion from March, having to finance a war without the credit of London's merchants, and having poor relations with the church and commons.
Not exactly "all of the problems" as a lot of the problems of Richard were created by him not beign able to rule personally - either because his own age or "problems" or lack of kids. There is a reason why in 1390's were affraid of another regency possibility and no clear succesion. Also, John don't have to wory about Duke of Lancaster from obvious reasons :D

Either way, I think your analysis of John's situation in 1377 is great and excellent "starting point". Sure, John will have to deal with some problems, but I still think his situation in 1377 is better than his nephew's OTL, arguably even better than the "starting" point of his father. The question is" How different King John will be from OTL Regent John? It's not so uncommon for kings to reconcile with their fomer rivals and political adversaries - especially if both sides will gain something from it. But there is always a chance that post-coronation his actions will be dicatated by his huge ego boost.
 
Last edited:
England at the time was in no economic shape for another invasion on France.
Was it ever, really?

I was merely alluding to the fact that while Gaunt's Castilian venture was very much a one-off, most likely preempted by the obligations of the English crown if he had succeeded to it, throughout this period, English kings asserting and trying to enforce a claim to the French crown was "business as usual".
 
I think that more pragmatic John II would gladly trade his right to use "King of France" title and removal of fleurs-de-lis for some money.
That's gonna go down well with John's English subjects. How would the issue of Gascony and homage be settled,then? Does Gaunt settle it on Bolingbroke, as earlier English kings did on their sons, and have him pay homage? Or does he settle it on a cadet Plantagenet branch (Edmund and Thomas I think are the only real options), like Richard did to John?
which brings the entire Bohun estate to Thomas of Woodstock. (Or perhaps John II would intervene in ATL to arrange a marriage for Mary to Edward of Norwich? cc: @CaptainShadow)
If Beatrice of Portugal is still on the cards one assumes she'd be what Gaunt aims for his nephew. Worst case scenario he could argue that Mary's entry into church "was under duress", drag her out, and marry her to Norwich if he really wants a counterweight for Gloucester/wants to line his brother's pockets. Not sure it'd be worth antagonizing him, though.
Elizabeth is guaranteed a more illustrious match than she got in OTL, but I don't know where she'd go off hand. Perhaps she'd be kept strategically unmarried as to keep a possible marriage to Charles VI on the table for some future negotiation?
Elizabeth was in negotiations for Charles VI iotl...and, I mean, she's a better match than Isabella of Bavaria. Not sure how one would deal with Charles' supposed infatuation with her though, if one wanted to marry her in France.
She could be wed off to Enrique earlier in ATL, as to break the Franco-Castilian alliance and allow John to focus on the war with France.
I'd argue this is the "likeliest" one. I assume with no (?) campaign the Castillan pay offs would be butterflied? Or does Gaunt still get money? Or are these payments shifted to Isabella of Castile in ATL?
but I still think his situation in 1377 is better than his nephew's OTL
Why so?
 
How did the WotR change attitudes in Castile and Scotland?
Castile already had a precedent for female monarchs. Scotland had a different set of laws, but was an actively player in the violence of the WOTR, so it's not like they ignorant to the dangers of an unclear succession, and they had little other choice than Mary by the time the crown came to her.


the story, IIRC, was that Gaston was given poison for his dad by Carlos el Malo under the guise that it was a "love tonic" and would at least help Gaston's parents "reconcile" (their relationship, even by the standards of the day, was deemed atrocious, and Carlos was the only reason that Gaston's dad didn't do anything "extreme"). Gaston was caught by his father (trying to sneak the love potion into the wine). And when Gaston Jr realized he had been duped, he was so overcome with guilt that he refused to eat and essentially starved himself to death.
This is a ridiculous story even by the standard of medieval history 🤣


Shortly after Philippa's failed betrothal to Foix, a match was considered with the count of Holland (Wilhelm of Bavaria-Straubing, father of the future duchess of Touraine, Brabant and Gloucester). There was also a Breton match considered after Joan Holland died. As for Elizabeth, there had been talk of a match with Charles le Fou, but I'm guessing Edward III's death or the expiry of the truce scuppered them.
I don't think I've ever heard of the Holland or Breton matches, tbh.

It's never been clear to me how serious the English and French were about royal marriages at this time. Charles V puts forward his two daughters (who both die in quick succession) and Elizabeth of Lancaster gets mentioned for Charles, but it all may have been just an exercise to see what the other side was willing to offer to make peace.


ISTR that Carlos el Malo had the ambition of a double match. One daughter to be duchess of Brittany, one to be queen of England. He sent the ambassadors but they were...waylaid by Charles V.
I don't think that's quite right ...? Charles the Bad's marriage alliance with England was discovered while Joan Holland still alive, so it couldn't have been part of a double marriage scheme. And Richard is wed to Anne of Bohemia by the time of Joan Holland's death.


Matilda had to strike a deal with Stephen to make her son a king
Not to be the "well, actually" guy, but Matilda didn't strike the deal with Stephen -- Henry did. And the treaty Henry negotiates rather explicitly says Matilda never had any right to the throne. Henry's succession is, strictly speaking, based on the fact that Stephen adopts Henry as his son in the Treaty of Westminster.


England at the time was in no economic shape for another invasion on France. Richard II looked for compromise, and I see nor reason, why John II wouldn't do the same - after all, he supported and helped Richard during Truce of Leulinghem negotionations. But John should be more effective, since 1) he was more skilled diplomat and 2) Unlike his nephew, he wasn't francophile. Of course France could start it, but it's not like they were in such great shape either. So both sides are in need for timr to catch breath, and I think that more pragmatic John II would gladly trade his right to use "King of France" title and removal of fleurs-de-lis for some money.
I think I mostly agree with you here? x'D

John supported Leulinghem, sure, but that the late-80s and early-90s version of John. He'd gone off and had his Castilian adventure, and been paid genuinely unbelievable amount of money to give up his claim to Castile. Richard had made him duke of Aquitaine as a reward for negotiating Castile's exit from the war. John had finally done something big with his life here. He had a legacy.

1377 John does not have this. He had some glories, like routing Burgundy in his defense of Calais, but those were tempered by disasters like the Great Chevauchée. Indeed, 1377 John, as well as both his brothers, seem eager to recreate the glories of Edward III and the Black Prince. So, ATL John II might not have the resources for a war right away -- and, as such, may seek a truce to "catch his breath," as you say -- but I think he's going to want to do something to prove he is a great warrior king as soon as he has sorted out England.


Like I said - France wasn't in such great shape either, Charles VI was a called mad for a reason, Kingdom was on the brink of civil war pretty much all the time, and France was trying luck in Italy during that time.
Well, in 1377, Charles V is king, and Charles VI won't go mad until 1392. So it's really a question of 1) can John II get himself a truce, and fast, and 2) can he sort out his various domestic problems before Charles V gets his own house in order and goes on the offense again?


Not exactly "all of the problems" as a lot of the problems of Richard were created by him not beign able to rule personally - either because his own age or "problems" or lack of kids. There is a reason why in 1390's were affraid of another regency possibility and no clear succesion. Also, John don't have to wory about Duke of Lancaster from obvious reasons :D
I was referring to the situation in 1377, not for the entirety of his reign. There's going to be a clear divergence quickly, which -- again -- might include a Mortimer rebellion.


Either way, I think your analysis of John's situation in 1377 is great and excellent "starting point".
Well, thank you.


That's gonna go down well with John's English subjects. How would the issue of Gascony and homage be settled,then? Does Gaunt settle it on Bolingbroke, as earlier English kings did on their sons, and have him pay homage? Or does he settle it on a cadet Plantagenet branch (Edmund and Thomas I think are the only real options), like Richard did to John?
I don't think John is seriously going to considering selling his claims to Castile and to France and suzerainty of Aquitaine. Though, some combination of two of these three could may be acceptable.

OTL Gascons were highly opposed to divorcing Aquitaine, so it has to be Bolingbroke.


If Beatrice of Portugal is still on the cards one assumes she'd be what Gaunt aims for his nephew. Worst case scenario he could argue that Mary's entry into church "was under duress", drag her out, and marry her to Norwich if he really wants a counterweight for Gloucester/wants to line his brother's pockets. Not sure it'd be worth antagonizing him, though.
Beatrice is good for an English prince (though who knows how the ATL Third Fernandine War would go), but I think John would need to feel pretty secure in his kingship before he allowed Edmund to uproot from England and head to Portugal to set up his son as king there.

I'd argue this is the "likeliest" one. I assume with no (?) campaign the Castillan pay offs would be butterflied? Or does Gaunt still get money? Or are these payments shifted to Isabella of Castile in ATL?
I only just realized that it's all for nothing if John and Constance have more children in ATL. She's only 23 at the time of her husband's accession here, and a surviving son by her is a game-changer.
 
Top